2020 27-inch iMac review: A classic Mac for the end of an era

With Apple Silicon around the corner, is this Intel-based Mac refresh a good buy?

Read the whole story

 

[salamanderjuice]

It’s interesting they still stuck with 4 USB A ports and 2 TB3. The Mac Mini has the flip of that.

 

[Belisarius]

I think it's a great Mac to buy if: 1) you need a Mac now, 2) you need Windows/x86 compatibility, since as it stands at the moment you won't be getting that in the ARM Mac line (though I'm of the opinion that that will change), and 3) you're adverse to going to the ARM Macs until they shake out a bit and are proven.

Personally, there's no way I'd put money into an Intel Mac at this point, since I'm extremely excited for ARM Macs. But my case is not everyone's case, and a significant number of people, especially here at Ars, have very compelling use cases that make this a great upgrade.

Edit: also, I've never understood the weird hangups with bezels – I can't say that I've ever cared even a little bit. Oh well, different strokes for different folks and all that.

 

[Braw]

My 2k 27" 2.93 i7 from 2010 is still going strong today although no longer supported with major updates, security still is.

10 years without issue.

Placement of the ports still piss me off to this day.

 

[tennapel]

It looks incredibly dated which is fine if you have multiple units already but the looks are no longer a selling point.

Which are the competitors in terms of modern looks?

 

[sorten]

In cases of FOMO, you could wait until the ARM based iMac is reviewed and then decide, and you'd be able to get a discount on the outgoing 2020 iMac if you decided to stick with Intel.

 

[tennapel]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

 

[BullBearMS]

Having lived through two prior CPU transitions, if you tend to keep a computer for the long haul, wait. I'd at least want to see how the performance looks on the new machines at the end of this year.

If you replace your computers quickly anyway and need a new machine now, go ahead and buy.

 

[Seno]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

 

[firsttimecaller]

anyone run Android emulation on any of the newer Macs?

i do it on my 2010 Pro and it has heavy lag. curious if it ever runs well.

 

[BullBearMS]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

I bought early during the PowerPC transition and bought late during the Intel transition. It wasn't an issue either way.

 

[Old_one]

I do wonder about the processor that will go into the Apple Silicon Macs, and that makes a difference in the question of my next Mac. Will the new processor be the next A-series processor, or will it be a somewhat different beast? If, for example, the new processor is the first of a new series of ridiculously high-performance SOCs, that would strengthen the case for waiting longer. But if it's just a 'next step' in the A-series, that would make a case for buying now.

 

[jdw]

It looks incredibly dated which is fine if you have multiple units already but the looks are no longer a selling point.

Which are the competitors in terms of modern looks?

Consider most desktops are not all in ones, most modern monitors are competitors whether you have a PC, Mini or Mac Pro. And when you start getting into multi-monitor set ups the large bezel and silver chin are a waste of space.

What modern monitors are competitors to the 5K "nano-texture" display on this? (Sticking around the 27" size.)

(Fully serious question, I would get the LG 5K tomorrow if it weren't glossy. Glossy is the devil. Samuel may have capitulated, but I never will.)

ETA: Don't get me wrong, I also hate the chin, and for the same reason: as pretty as this screen is, it would never fit into my multi-monitor setup. But sooo many tiny dots....! There's no such thing as enough tiny dots!

 

[BullBearMS]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

A home user doesn't need more than the base configuration at $1,799.

The SSD is really the only thing I would bump up.

RAM is trivially user upgradable on this model.

 

[Burgernaut]

My 2k 27" 2.93 i7 from 2010 is still going strong today although no longer supported with major updates, security still is.

10 years without issue.

I agree. Great machine, although hobbled today by its fastest port being gigabit Ethernet. I replaced mine (well, passed it down the family) when Apple got around to shipping a desktop that doubled its benchmark performance — quite a few years later.

 

[BullBearMS]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

That's half of a cheap car... If I paid $6K for a computer, I'd have myself committed.

What home user is going to max out every possible option over the $1,799 base price?

If you're a Pro user, you're going to be waiting for Intel to finally get around to shipping the 10nm version of their Xeon chips, so you can buy the iMac Pro version of this.

 

[Unclebugs]

It looks incredibly dated which is fine if you have multiple units already but the looks are no longer a selling point.

Which are the competitors in terms of modern looks?

Ditto!

 

[jonah]

Still plugging away with my 2010 27" iMac as well. It's been a great machine. I'd love to replace it, especially to be able to play middling games a lot better, but I can't cough up ~$2500 for that.

The rear ports has never bothered me much. If I need to plug and unplug a USB device very frequently, I hang a 6" USB extension cable off the back and it hangs down right where I can reach it from the front. I've done that maybe twice in ten years.

 

[Belisarius]

I do wonder about the processor that will go into the Apple Silicon Macs, and that makes a difference in the question of my next Mac. Will the new processor be the next A-series processor, or will it be a somewhat different beast? If, for example, the new processor is the first of a new series of ridiculously high-performance SOCs, that would strengthen the case for waiting longer. But if it's just a 'next step' in the A-series, that would make a case for buying now.

Although no one outside of Apple can say right now with certainty – and they're not going to say – the processor in the nw ARM Macs is almost certainly going to be a new line, rather than an iteration of the A-series that powers the iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV. Apple has gone to great pains to make it clear that the A12Z that's shipping in the development kits is not representative of what will ship in the actual ARM products, so I think it's probably pretty well assured that we'll see a new and certainly more powerful line.

 

[Geebs]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

A home user doesn't need more than the base configuration at $1,799.

The SSD is really the only thing I would bump up.

RAM is trivially user upgradable on this model.

I think it's pretty clear that the average home user doesn't even need the base configuration and could get by just fine with a second-hand model, which will have 90% of the CPU performance.

I'm sure they're hiking the price of this machine to avoid cannibalising their iMac Pro sales, but, seriously, who is this machine actually for? As far as I can tell, it's for me, since my workflow needs as much single-thread performance as I can get, but who honestly needs 16 GB of video memory in a consumer Mac? People who really like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and refuse to use Windows, I suppose.

 

[QuietOC]

How is the 4TB SSD configured? It sounds like it uses flash on the mainboard and a daughter card. Does it show as two devices in Disk Utility? Does it have PCIe 3.0 x8 bandwidth? The 256GB base option shows rather poor bandwidth in other reviews.

 

[Belisarius]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

That's half of a cheap car... If I paid $6K for a computer, I'd have myself committed.

If you don't need what the $6,000 price gives you, obviously don't buy it – the lower priced models will meet your needs. But if you do legitimately need that power, which probably means you're using it as a money-making device, the $6k for those specs isn't all that bad, relatively speaking.

So yeah, I'd never pay $6k for a computer either. But I don't need what $6k buys.

 

[Unclebugs]

I took the plunge just five months ago and bought a 16-inch MacBook Pro, base model, to replace my 7-year-old, 13-inch MacBook Pro. I knew in my bones that Apple would be switching because I bought my wife a 2019 iPad Pro, 12.9 inch model. I found that machine quite capable, so I could feel the change coming. Like other posters, I keep my Macs a long time, and by the time my current laptop no longer functions as a portable writing tool, Apple Silicon Macs or iPads will be ready for my needs. This new iMac will do everything you need, if you need a new desktop, I would have loved to have this machine for my journalism classes. A large, big screen makes producing a yearbook, magazine, or newspaper a whole lot easier.

 

[Got Nate?]

Unfortunately, even the top specification offers just 8GB of RAM and 512GB of solid state storage. Both are a bit low for some of the use cases Apple markets these devices for.

This is the apple I know and love. ALWAYS stingy on the RAM and storage. This is also the apple I know and hate: soldered, un-upgradable storage. And the 27" iMac is the last bastion of upgradable memory across the entire product line. (The iMac pro goes in the same bucket as the mini - technically upgradable, but highly discouraged by apple)

 

[EvanIsAnArs]

Those (rightfully) complaining about the location of the iMac ports could look to get something like the Satechi Aluminum Type-C Clamp Hub Pro? Gotta love buying accessories to fix design flaws.

 

[neil_w]

Would have liked to see something about thermal performance and fan noise, if it's any different from before.

I'm on a 2013 21" i7 and it's been rock solid, but I'm ready for something new. To my own surprise I am mentally all-in on an Apple Silicon iMac. I used to think that having the option of running Windows in a VM was a great thing, but I realize now I've never actually used it for anything (although I have considered it for the sole purpose of running Paint.net).

I am almost beside myself in anticipation of the first AS iMac reveal. Haven't been so excited about Macs in years.

 

[r0twhylr]

I took the plunge just five months ago and bought a 16-inch MacBook Pro, base model, to replace my 7-year-old, 13-inch MacBook Pro. I knew in my bones that Apple would be switching because I bought my wife a 2019 iPad Pro, 12.9 inch model. I found that machine quite capable, so I could feel the change coming. Like other posters, I keep my Macs a long time, and by the time my current laptop no longer functions as a portable writing tool, Apple Silicon Macs or iPads will be ready for my needs. This new iMac will do everything you need, if you need a new desktop, I would have loved to have this machine for my journalism classes. A large, big screen makes producing a yearbook, magazine, or newspaper a whole lot easier.

I'm on a 15" 2009 MacBook Pro right now. It runs a little hot, but I love this thing. I gave it a new battery and an SSD a while ago, and it just keeps chugging along. Lack of new OS compatibility is what will eventually drive me off this thing.

 

[Deleted member 274645]

I know Applecare is a thing, but a 1-year warranty on $6000 hardware seems like sheer madness to me-- especially when replacement parts are so hard to source.

 

[BullBearMS]

Unfortunately, even the top specification offers just 8GB of RAM and 512GB of solid state storage. Both are a bit low for some of the use cases Apple markets these devices for.

This is the apple I know and love. ALWAYS stingy on the RAM and storage. This is also the apple I know and hate: soldered, un-upgradable storage. And the 27" iMac is the last bastion of upgradable memory across the entire product line. (The iMac pro goes in the same bucket as the mini - technically upgradable, but highly discouraged by apple)

The only company that has stressed completely un-upgradable and even non-repairable hardware is Microsoft.

>According to iFixit, the Surface Laptop isn’t repairable at all. In fact, it got a 0 out of 10 for repairability and was labeled a “glue-filled monstrosity.” Ouch. That’s never happened before. The lowest scores previously were a 1 out of 10 for all previous iterations of the Surface Pro

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/2 ... onstrosity

It was literally impossible to even replace the battery on the Surface Laptop without destroying the entire device, much less the RAM or SSD.

 

[Deleted member 1]

It looks incredibly dated which is fine if you have multiple units already but the looks are no longer a selling point.

Which are the competitors in terms of modern looks?

ETA: Don't get me wrong, I also hate the chin, and for the same reason: as pretty as this screen is, it would never fit into my multi-monitor setup. But sooo many tiny dots....! There's no such thing as enough tiny dots!

Same here.. I've been using Minis ever since glossy became a thing. I have an iMac in the office, and the antiglare coating Apple use now is pretty good, but it's still a compromise. Also the coating wears off when you clean it. Antiglare would be great, ideally without the front glass at all (which will cause extra blurring due to the distance between antiglare layer and pixels).

But the biggest problem I have with the iMac is the link between the computer and the screen. In a few years the computer will be deprecated but the screen will still be great. Since Apple dropped target display mode there is nothing I can do with it then.

Also, I use my displays with more than one computer. I have a Windows game PC, a 2014 Mac Mini to work from home, and a Linux system I use as personal desktop. All using the same 4K display. Another reason the lack of target display mode is a big loss The 2014 Mini is really getting slow now and the iMac is a good value prop except for that target display issue, it just wouldn't fit because of that.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

The bad

The bezels are a little beefy by today’s standards
The ports, while ample, are all in a hard-to-reach spot on the back
The price can get very steep with all those optional upgrades, including nano-texture

Honestly? These are all pretty iffy as far as “bads” go, and none would be a showstopper for someone in the market for a MacOS desktop.

 

[DStaal]

I think it's a great Mac to buy if: 1) you need a Mac now, 2) you need Windows/x86 compatibility, since as it stands at the moment you won't be getting that in the ARM Mac line (though I'm of the opinion that that will change), and 3) you're adverse to going to the ARM Macs until they shake out a bit and are proven.

Personally, there's no way I'd put money into an Intel Mac at this point, since I'm extremely excited for ARM Macs. But my case is not everyone's case, and a significant number of people, especially here at Ars, have very compelling use cases that make this a great upgrade.

Edit: also, I've never understood the weird hangups with bezels – I can't say that I've ever cared even a little bit. Oh well, different strokes for different folks and all that.

I'm definitely looking to buy one of the last Intel Macs out - I use my computer daily for work, and I have the occasional need to run a VM instance of Windows or some Linux distro. In the short term, that means I need an Intel Mac.

I have no doubt there will be someone releasing an emulator within a year or two of the first ARM Macs which will meet my needs (I don't need high performance - just the occasional ability to test something or run an ancient version of Java) - but I can't afford to wait that time, and I can't afford to not be able to run that occasional VM instance in the meantime.

 

[BullBearMS]

If you are in the market for a dual boot machine with an Intel chip, this is the time to upgrade if you want to have a good machine for the next 7 years. The longevity of iMacs is great, and I don't think that Apple will drop support in the next 7 years, looking back at for how long I could use my white PowerPC based iMac after they transitioned to Intel.

I was using Mac when they transitioned from 68k to PowerPC, Apple are very good at supporting older devices and a had a lot of practice at changing architectures.

At least anyone buying one these know they won't be left hanging in the wind when the they move to ARM, but holy hell $5,999 is a lot of cash.

A home user doesn't need more than the base configuration at $1,799.

The SSD is really the only thing I would bump up.

RAM is trivially user upgradable on this model.

I think it's pretty clear that the average home user doesn't even need the base configuration and could get by just fine with a second-hand model, which will have 90% of the CPU performance.

I'm sure they're hiking the price of this machine to avoid cannibalising their iMac Pro sales, but, seriously, who is this machine actually for? As far as I can tell, it's for me, since my workflow needs as much single-thread performance as I can get, but who honestly needs 16 GB of video memory in a consumer Mac? People who really like Shadow of the Tomb Raider and refuse to use Windows, I suppose.

We're in an odd spot with the proliferation in the number of cores in a base configuration machine.

It wasn't that many years ago when people in the Ars comment section were telling me I was crazy for saying that Intel needed to make a high end consumer chip with more than two cores, because what would you even do with more than two cores, anyway.

Now we get articles on how "the base specs are only good enough for at-home office workers doing standard office-y things". A six core machine is now only good enough for running Office?

It's kind of crazy.

 

[Thomas Harte]

I really disagree with this review. The iMac has recently been a bit of a sucker product. You get laptop internals and a built-in screen, with non of the portability, minimal upgradability and repairability, at a very high price. Apple steadfastly refuses to make a practical, reasonablly priced desktop, so Mac fans are forced to buy this extremely compromised product instead.

It sucks.

Sticking with the base model to be as fair as possible, you get a 3.1GHz 6-core 10th-generation i5.

Intel does not sell a 6-core mobile 10th-gen i5. The mobile i5s are all quad-core.

 

[citpeks]

A home user doesn't need more than the base configuration at $1,799.

The SSD is really the only thing I would bump up.

RAM is trivially user upgradable on this model.

The internal 256GB SSD storage on the $1799 base model has no upgrade options, as in the past.

To get a larger 512 SSD requires moving to the $1999 middle model. That extra $200 also nets a marginally faster processor, which is a bonus, but the middle tier is the storage upgrade.

Apple's product managers are very adept at driving all but the most price sensitive buyers to skip the base configurations.

It's not unlike buying a car, where certain essential features are only included with various packages or higher trim levels to drive higher selling prices.

 

[Deleted member 174040]

I really disagree with this review. The iMac has recently been a bit of a sucker product. You get laptop internals and a built-in screen, with non of the portability, minimal upgradability and repairability, at a very high price. Apple steadfastly refuses to make a practical, reasonablly priced desktop, so Mac fans are forced to buy this extremely compromised product instead.

It sucks.

Ok, what does a practical desktop look like, and what is it priced at?

(I dislike seeing posts like this auto-downvoted)